and before i get another stupid response, my "point" is that the case has yet to be decided, and your interpretation of the documents thus far is just that - your interpretation. the problem is that you act like your conjecture is "fact", when it is just conjecture based largely on your personal bias. you don't know what happened in that bedroom and likely never will, and all your blathering about what a bad person the accuser is amounts to nothing more than... blathering.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
No Way JJ Can Be Convicted
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
UMGriz75
Well-known member
You've made it clear that you have strong opinions.argh! said:
They don't seem to be based on anything, but your main objection is to other people having opinions, and citing the testimonial record to support them.
That really bothers you.
And that's fine.
That is your opinion. That's all it is, and that apparently is all you have, so treasure it.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
The key quote is about being over being "super sensitive about it."PlayerRep said:
Isn't "sensitive" in relation to public opinion? Comments? Knowing people saw it?
"I'm not super sensitive about the subject too much anymore so Its all good...and I don't think he thinks he did anything wrong."
That is easy to reconcile with a public humiliation at the Forester's Ball; it is nearly impossible to reconcile with HE RAPED ME!!! I mean really. "It's all good!"
The problem is you are TRYING to reconcile information with No context, but a very few words no expression, no facial clues, and you are defining the effect of the event and interpreting what you think it is based on a mental state you have assigned.
You don't know what she is not supersensitve about anymore. Was it the alleged assault, talking about it, the physical chaffe, bruising,???? You have NO clue. You have interpreted what you think it is, so have others. From your interpretation you have drawn further conclusions, from those conclusions you have gone even further. You have assumed that sworn statement's are complete, in context, and clearly understood along with clarification that comes from redirect etc etc.
You have, in other words, barely scratched the surface. ANYONES interpretation of what the documents say and indicate is as valid as yours.
What you don't have access to are the police reports, their interviews or the interviews of the alleged victim by both the police and County attorney where all those questions may have been answered. You also are making a very WRONG assumption that one must be lying and the other must be telling the truth........ Funny about that. Isn't it amazing the number of time eye witness testimony has been mis-proven, despite the fact there was little doubt the witness was telling the truth??
In other words you have nothing while its all fun to talk about, guess and assume your interpretation is simply nothing. So I'd put away the name calling, accusations, and other little games you guys are playing and realize yes JJ can be convicted.
You don't know what she is not supersensitve about anymore. Was it the alleged assault, talking about it, the physical chaffe, bruising,???? You have NO clue. You have interpreted what you think it is, so have others. From your interpretation you have drawn further conclusions, from those conclusions you have gone even further. You have assumed that sworn statement's are complete, in context, and clearly understood along with clarification that comes from redirect etc etc.
You have, in other words, barely scratched the surface. ANYONES interpretation of what the documents say and indicate is as valid as yours.
What you don't have access to are the police reports, their interviews or the interviews of the alleged victim by both the police and County attorney where all those questions may have been answered. You also are making a very WRONG assumption that one must be lying and the other must be telling the truth........ Funny about that. Isn't it amazing the number of time eye witness testimony has been mis-proven, despite the fact there was little doubt the witness was telling the truth??
In other words you have nothing while its all fun to talk about, guess and assume your interpretation is simply nothing. So I'd put away the name calling, accusations, and other little games you guys are playing and realize yes JJ can be convicted.
tnt said:
Don't you mean to say that you(TNT) "want" JJ convicted. Why don't you come out and admit that you are hoping JJ gets axed, and thrown in jail for 30 years so you can have a party. Jane Does actions surely aren't that of a innocent young co-ed. 50-50 TNT. Does this midnight romp warrant a prison sentence...........get real!
nzone said:
I don't know if it does or not.......... But get used to the idea it could.
I have on several occasions suggested at the worst, from what I know, what should have happened was a deferred imposition with conditions, that allows JJ the ability to take some time off get the H out of town until it all goes away. Apparently either the CA thinks differently and wants a long sentence to accept a compromises, the defense is unwilling, or JJ is indeed totally innocent. What I am not willing to accept is the allegeed victim being thrown under the bus by, fortunately, a few who are so absorbed in their sports hero worship their brains have disengaged.
grizcountry420
Well-known member
You effin clowns are still arguing about this? Havent you all spun this whole JJ situation every which way possible?
Move on......................
Move on......................
75 is doing a terrific and persuasive job of taking the publicly known information, and organizing and trying to make sense of it. He is fleshing out and testing what a number of us had concluded after reading the various materials, i.e. what was said in the title of this thread. 75 is obviously a smart and knowledgeable guy, who has done and does his homework. It's too bad a few more of you can't take off your biased-colored glasses, and appreciate what 75 is doing, and maybe even spar with him a bit more.
AZGrizFan said:
i must say, you seem to finally get it! you have now conceded that what you have been posting is your opinion, and not "fact". now if you could go back and use the edit function to re-label all the statements you have presented as "facts" that are really just opinions, this discussion could finally end!
GrizMusician
Well-known member
grizcountry420 said:
+1...
NorthwestFresh
Well-known member
So the defense will be that even if she did say "no", she didn't mean it because she's clinically psychotic, and something something something?
There is a great strategy.
-Did you have intercourse with her?
"Yes"
-Did she say no?
"Well, maybe, I was kind of drunk, but beyotch be crazy, so it doesn't matter!"
:lol:
Good luck with that one.
There is a great strategy.
-Did you have intercourse with her?
"Yes"
-Did she say no?
"Well, maybe, I was kind of drunk, but beyotch be crazy, so it doesn't matter!"
:lol:
Good luck with that one.
PlayerRep said:
Why bother? He is taking edited quotes from a defense document/motion. providing the exact interpretation the defense lawyers are planning on being made. He then takes the next step of promoting his interpretation based on missing information from the prosecution, which will only available before trial in either an answer from the prosecution which hasn't come yet or at trial itself. He then wraps it all up by providing a motivation for a false accusation entirely of his own mind but supposedly supported by a medical diagnoses for which he provides no source (despite being asked several times by several different posters), or even so much as an order allowing the alleged victims docs (if any) to break privilege.
What he doesn't mention is that unless the defense has something else, they have laid out pretty clearly the defenses entire defense including their fishing expedition into the University's investigation. He fails to acknowlede the very clear fact that what happened before the "date" is irrelevant and even what happened in the "makeout session" before the alleged assault is equally irrelevant. He justifies it of course by saying JJ's statement never said she said no or discouraged him in any way. He uses excerpts from several emails after the event despite the fact his primary quote makes no grammatical sense with out additional wording as has been pointed out by several other posters.
From what he presented the prosecution should have NO trouble filling in the substantial blanks in the defense "version" at TRIAL which is where this will be decided.
So PR what were you looking for???
GrizMusician
Well-known member
Congrats. 10,000 views.
I think you are all obsessed.
I think you are all obsessed.
funny water
Well-known member
JBS said:
+1 :thumb:
UMGriz75 said:
Pretty amazing 140 some posts, 57 on this thread, and just the strangest feeling of deja vu or reincarnation but just the strangest similarity in writing style and particularly the sarcasm, its as If UMGriz75 was somebody else maybe someone who graduated from law school in 75, but maybe someone else. But I'm probably imagining it all.......................
